15 replies · 423 views
Interesting, maybe not, depends on what sort of day you've had....
Blue Monday is one of only three records in the history of the UK charts to sell over 1 million copies while not getting to number one.
The others....Last Christmas by Wham, and Stranger On The Shore by Acker Bilk. Talk about dubious company!
On the other hand, this just proves that just because a song reached number one doesn't mean that it's a good song....
Many decent songs don't reach number one on the charts.
quite the reverse, the more people who like something the shitter it is. Quality and quantity are not willing bedfellows.
Otherwise, Britney would be more talented than Hillage...Timberlake a greater genius than Zappa.
and let us not forget st winifreds school choir with "grandma we love you"
number one with a bullit,utter genius, why are new order in the rock n roll hall of fame and they aint eh ?
theres no justice hehehe
Doctor? wrote: quite the reverse, the more people who like something the shitter it is. Quality and quantity are not willing bedfellows.
Otherwise, Britney would be more talented than Hillage...Timberlake a greater genius than Zappa.
I agree with you to some extent. Not all songs that are "popular" are rubbish, but many are.
Doctor? wrote: quite the reverse, the more people who like something the shitter it is. Quality and quantity are not willing bedfellows.
I do not see quality and quantity as being mutually exclusive, the ontly thing you can say for certain is that quantity of sales does not equal quality of goods.
Does anyone still care whether something gets to number one, other than record company execs and radio 1 playlisters?
Does anyone still care whether something gets to number one, other than record company execs and radio 1 playlisters?
More than a handful of noolers care about how high New Order chart with their singles.
Which tends to spark a flame war between those who think Warners should be doing more to widen the appeal of the band with more chart-friendly formats that three 7"s, for example, and those who think that New Order should return to the good old days of EPs with no remixes (or, at least, none not done by Shep Pettibone or the band itself) and Peter Saville pulling his finger out and not naming albums after tracks that appear thereon.
Which side I am on? The side of truth, baby. How about you?
It's the same with every band: longevity and the personal thing: "How long can New Order keep going? Will they damage their legacy with some poor career choices? If they do become massively successful again, how do I square what they've become with what they were? How does that change me and my relationship with the band?"
Fac33 wrote: Does anyone still care whether something gets to number one, other than record company execs and radio 1 playlisters?
Not if they've got any sense!
Nowadays, the record companies and major stores are s**tting themselves as bands don't even need to release a 'tangible' product - record it themselves, put up a website and charge a small amount for downloading tracks or albums. The web has finally managed what punk tried to do (and almost managed) but failed.
The revolution starts at closing time... 
Jonny Donepoindatgunname wrote:
....and Peter Saville pulling his finger out and not naming albums after tracks that appear thereon.
since when did saville choose the album titles?
hibster wrote:
Jonny Donepoindatgunname wrote:
....and Peter Saville pulling his finger out and not naming albums after tracks that appear thereon.
since when did saville choose the album titles?
An erroneous 'reference' to Saville refusing to design a sleeve for Subculture?
SHEDi xxx
An erroneous 'reference' to Saville refusing to design a sleeve for Subculture?
Apologies - was trying to make the following two separate points:
One: Peter Saville (who has never, to my mind, named a New Order song) to make elaborate artistic statement with sleeve design rather than sans serif charcaters in organge/getting flunky to mook about with classic leaf design.
Two: New Order to come up with imaginative names for albums rather than selecting one song title to represent thematic whole.
Apologies for elliding the two in my previous post.
Better chart positions equal more releases,its a fact. If Singles had performed better we wouldve had Turn by now and probably this "other" album before christmas. I doubt well get either this side of the decade now. But its a nap we`ll get a compilation cos they havent used the title Greatest Hits yet.
Doctor? wrote: quite the reverse, the more people who like something the shitter it is. Quality and quantity are not willing bedfellows.
That's a quite pretentious statement.
The belief that just because lots of people like something then it must be crap is just, well... crap.
I remember thinking what a wanker Tom Paulin was on the Late Review programme for slagging off the latest Terry Pratchett novel because it sold in the millions. If the story had been bollocks then fair enough, but just because it was popular was demeaning & embarrassing for him.
A recent example for me is Crazy - It got to No. 1 & stayed there because it's a v. good song. (Albums not that bad either).
Remember NO are a pop band. Pop being short for popular.
Oh, & both Hillage & Zappa are hit & miss at best.
